Right I know this has been said before but I have tried to go into a bit more detail, at the present time 14 superleague clubs receive £1 million pound each and Championship clubs £90,000, why dont they look at the following have 2 superleague divisions, superleague 1 consisting of 10 team each receiving £900,000 but playing each other 3 times this giving more high profile games and extra fixtures, this will eleviate the £100,000 loss of sky money, then each of the Superleague 2 clubs receive £540,000 each with the same format of superleague 1, the money left over goes to championship clubs £400,000.

To decide what teams go in what divisions is simple at the end of the year the top 10 stay in superleague 1 and bottom 4 drop to superleague 2 with the top 6 championship clubs, the 4 clubs left in the championship stay put.
This would also allow for promotion and relegation as the difference between each divisions financial is much closer than present.

I have no doubt that someone will find flaws with what I have wrote but the principal is there, with the recent announcement of Bradford Bulls financial problems and ours last year its obvious to everyone except the 2 at the top that the present system is not working.

Like to know what people think, would it be viable or a non starter, would it improve both competions or would the fans get fed up playing the same team 3 times?

The present system didn't work for Wakefield last year because of Ted's awful financial management. The Bulls have been in trouble ever since they signed Iestyn Harris and the expensive court hearing that followed it.
A League of 10 clubs would finish up like Scottish football. With league and cup matches it seems like Celtic are playing Rangers every other week.

So if Warrington and half a dozen other clubs didnt have there multi millionaire backers, you feel all the other clubs would survive?? dream on look at companys house and just see the losses of most of the rugby league clubs, without director loand half the clubs in superleague would be bankrupt.

Simon Moran may have steered us out of the dark years with his big money backing but I'm pretty sure he doesn't need to do that anymore and we could afford full cap with attendances of 5k for home games due to the revenue generated by the club in other non rugby related business !
Perhaps the other clubs need to come and learn how it's done rather than blunder their way to bankruptcies like Bradford have !
Bradford should be investigated into their financial statements made in their super league licence application and if they fraudulently were awarded the licence they should be relegated to the Chumpionship and Halifax should take their place !

Firstly I can see anywhere in your post that says why they should chance from what we have now.

But lets have a look at the detail.

you suggest that we play 9 teams 3 times to give us a league of 27 weekly rounds. We already have 27 games so there's no extra game to balance the income. Plus a 10 team league won;t have a top 8 play-off so there will in all likelihood be no extra games for anyone, and less for some.

The 10 teams will get £100k cut from their income. Daft.

Now let's look at the division 2. the four teams from the old SL will have their budgets cut by just over half, and I'me guessing their attendance, sponsorship & sales will suffer similarly. Daft.

The 6 teams who stay in the second tier will get an additional £350k. Great for them. The teams relegated to the third division (Championship if you like) will have their money halved also. Daft.

So out of all the 26 teams that will be affected by this 6 will be better off whilst the rest are considerably worse off. Not what this game needs at all.

I agree with the OP actually. I would love to see SL1 and SL2 with 10 teams in each. That would give 27 fixtures if you played each team home, away and at a neutral venue, the latter designed to promote the game in a new area. As with any alternative idea there are pro's and cons but I think this would be an attractive one. You could even have guaranteed promotion/relegation of one team per season with a franchsie 'wrapper' around the two SL divisions.

For SL2 division you might have, for example, London, Cas, Widnes & Salford from the present SL complement along with, say, Halifax, Fev, Leigh, Batley, Sheffield and Barrow.

Under that you could have two semi pro divisions with new entrants from non traditional league areas starting in the lowest one.

You want clubs to have only 9 home fixtures? Barmy.

RL isn't strong enough as a sport to support 20 full time professional clubs. You can't (sensibly) have a system of automatic promotion and relegation if the two divisions don't operate on the same basic premise. Until we can manage that, there is no point having a two tiered SL.

I agree that 20 full time pro clubs would be difficult to support. Apart from the quality and availability of talent, is the appetite really there and I don't mean from the traditionalists currently operating outside Super League, the supporters of Halifax, Leigh and Featherstone for example, but, from the sponsors and the media that fund a large part of the game?

Additionally, if you are outside the play offs, or knocked out Round 1 and haven't had a good cup run, the money making opportunities are further restricted and the off season is a long one. If the right format could be found, 3 or 4 more guaranteed fixtures might help?

I don't think the appetite is there IN the heartlands. I've just finished a 6 month stint in Halifax with work. Fair enough it was the off season but you wouldn't know that they played RL in that town.* Actually, that's unfair - I know there's a good amateur scene but around the town centre there is little evidence of Halifax RLFC.

*although I did see Stuart Fielden in Costa